- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 18:07:13 +0200
- To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- CC: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <518A7831.60907@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear all, btw. please remember that we will have our regular ontolex telco on Friday at 3 pm this week. We can continue discussions on this issue there. See here http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2013.10.05,_15-16_pm_CET Have a good public holiday tomorrow! Best regards, Philipp. Am 08.05.13 17:56, schrieb Philipp Cimiano: > Dear all, > > I am not with Aldo and John here. > > I think introducing two different properties makes our model > unnecessarily complex. > We said we use "reference" when the meaning is expressed by an > extensional entity where we defined extensional as "having an > extension in some model of the theory". I agreed to that. > > According to this, a particular skos:Concept (an individual) has as > much as an extensional interpretation as a particular owl:Class, or an > owl:Individual to stay at the same level. > > Of course, a particular skos:Concept is an individual from an RDF/OWL > perspective and is also interpreted as some individual in the > corresponding domain, much like an owl:Individual. So a model assigns > some extensional interpretation to both skos:Concepts and > owl:Individuals. Where is then the essential difference that prevents > us using the same property for both then? > > Surely, skos:Concept are per definition "intensions", but technically > they are extensional entities according to our definition, i.e. > owl:Individual or rdf:Thing. > > Further, it is perfectly fine for a skos:Concept to be an owl:Class > (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/) > > What do we use then? "reference" or "means"? ;-) > > > Treating skos:Concept and owl:Class as different types of meaning > seems too subtle for people who want to use the model in practice as > they will always wonder which is the right property to use. > > Philipp. > > Am 08.05.13 13:08, schrieb John McCrae: >> Hi Aldo, >> >> Names in the previous example are not fixed of course. I also don't >> like "means" that much I just haven't got a better alternative yet. >> (synset is too WordNet-specific, means/meaning/concept are too broad) >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it >> <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>> wrote: >> >> Hi, I agree with John, we really seem on the same wave now :), in >> fact I agree with Model 2 being far better. >> Only, should we really use ontolex:means to link senses and >> synsets? It's a bit too broad as a name for a specific relation >> like that, isn't it? >> >> Aldo >> >> On May 8, 2013, at 6:37:22 AM , John McCrae >> <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jorge, all, >>> >>> Thanks for your comment, I agree this is an issue we should >>> discuss. I think that it is clearly wrong to continue to treat >>> skos:Concepts as ontological elements, they aren't and we >>> shouldn't really confuse them. The question of whether we should >>> still use SKOS terminologies as systems of reference for the >>> model also seems clear to me (of course we should). >>> >>> The question then boils down to this essential question: do we >>> use the same property to reference both a skos:Concept and an >>> ontology entity? >>> >>> This leads to two variation on the model: >>> >>> Model 1. (Same property) >>> >>> With synsets >>> >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> >>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx _--ontolex:conceptualizes->_ fao:Corn (a >>> skos:Concept) >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> >>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx --ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn (a >>> owl:Class) >>> >>> Without synsets >>> >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 _--ontolex:reference->_ >>> fao:Corn (a skos:Concept) >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:reference-> >>> dbpedia:Corn (a owl:Class) >>> >>> Model 2. (Different property) >>> >>> With synsets >>> >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> >>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx _--skos:exactMatch->_ fao:Corn (a skos:Concept) >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> >>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx --ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn (a >>> owl:Class) >>> >>> Without synsets >>> >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 _--ontolex:means->_ >>> fao:Corn (a skos:Concept) >>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:reference-> >>> dbpedia:Corn (a owl:Class) >>> >>> With further linking valid of >>> >>> fao:Corn --ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn >>> >>> >>> I prefer model two as it makes a clearer distinction between >>> terminologies and ontologies, doesn't require linking two SKOS >>> concepts with an ontolex property (which we should avoid as it >>> is not our job to fix SKOS) and allows us to define a natural >>> property for linking terminologies to ontologies. >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es >>> <mailto:jgracia@fi.upm.es>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Philipp, all >>> >>> I am not able to join the telco today, sorry. But let me to >>> formulate >>> a quick question about John's model >>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/File:John-modelling.png); >>> maybe you can treat it today. >>> Following the previous discussions I can understand the >>> inclusion of >>> the new class "Synset / Concept". My doubt is: despite the >>> fact that >>> skos concepts could be represented with this new class, can we >>> alternatively continuing treating skos concepts (of external >>> skos >>> ontologies) as "ontology entities"? (as in the IFLA example >>> presented >>> last week). For me this option is very natural, fully >>> compliant with >>> R3 "semantics by reference" and we shouldn't lose it. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jorge >>> >>> >>> 2013/5/2 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>: >>> > Dear all, >>> > >>> > this is a gentle reminder that we will have our regular >>> ontolex telco >>> > tomorrow. >>> > >>> > I intend to discuss the model proposed by John on the >>> basis of the >>> > contributions of all of you. >>> > I would like to see if there is a chance that we agree on >>> this model as a >>> > building block for the further work. >>> > >>> > Here is a link to the conference metadata including access >>> details: >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2013.03.05,_15-16_pm_CET >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > Philipp. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>> > Semantic Computing Group >>> > Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) >>> > University of Bielefeld >>> > >>> > Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >>> > Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412> >>> > Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >>> > >>> > Room H-127 >>> > Morgenbreede 39 >>> > 33615 Bielefeld >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jorge Gracia, PhD >>> Ontology Engineering Group >>> Artificial Intelligence Department >>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid >>> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/ >>> <http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/%7Ejgracia/> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano > Semantic Computing Group > Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) > University of Bielefeld > > Phone: +49 521 106 12249 > Fax: +49 521 106 12412 > Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > > Room H-127 > Morgenbreede 39 > 33615 Bielefeld -- Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano Semantic Computing Group Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) University of Bielefeld Phone: +49 521 106 12249 Fax: +49 521 106 12412 Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de Room H-127 Morgenbreede 39 33615 Bielefeld
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 16:07:43 UTC